Alcohol

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect the Chief Medical Officer's review of safe drinking levels to be completed and published.

Earl Howe: The Chief Medical Officer has appointed two expert groups to review the evidence on alcohol and health risks and on behaviour and guidelines, under the chairmanship respectively of Professor Mark Petticrew and Professor Sally Macintyre. The Chief Medical Officers for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will jointly oversee this work. We expect the review of evidence to conclude in January 2014.
	The Chief Medical Officers will then decide whether to develop new guidelines, which would take six months. We would expect to consult on any new guidelines.

Apprenticeships

Lord Adonis: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total number of staff employed within The Insolvency Service on 1 May 2013; and how many of them were (1) under the age of 21, (2) apprentices under the age of 21, and (3) apprentices over the age of 21.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: The total number of staff employed within The Insolvency Service on 1st May 2013 (headcount) was 2,001. Of those, two were under the age of 21, and none, either under or over the age of 21, were apprentices.

Asylum Seekers

Lord Avebury: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many asylum claims, made on the basis of persecution on grounds of sexual orientation, by people from (1) Ghana, (2) Nigeria, (3) The Gambia, (4) Kenya, (5) Liberia, (6) Malawi, (7) Mali, and (8) Sierra Leone, have been rejected in 2013 so far.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The Home Office publishes immigration statistics annually and quarterly. These are available from the Library of the House and can also be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government /publications/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2013.
	Published statistics are not disaggregated by the basis for the asylum claim. Consequently the requested information is not available through published statistics. However, since July 2011, the Home Office has flagged cases that include sexual orientation as part of their asylum claim on the Case Information Database (CID).
	For the period January to March 2013, a total of 307 cases in respect of the specified nationalities were refused. The reasons for asylum being refused cannot be determined without undertaking a manual search of records. However, no cases refused asylum in 2013 in respect of the above nationalities were flagged as including sexual orientation as a part of their claim.
	Please note the following:
	1) All figures quoted have been derived from management information and are therefore provisional and subject to change. This information has not been quality assured under National Statistics protocols.
	2) Figures relate to main applicants only.

Asylum Seekers

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure pregnant asylum applicants and their children receive continuity of maternal health care; and whether they issue guidance about the suitability of relocating, detaining or deporting those people.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: All asylum seekers have access to the United Kingdom's health care system, including maternity services.
	Guidance is available to decision makers about the detention and removal of pregnant asylum applicants.
	Guidance is issued to cover procedures for providing accommodation to pregnant asylum seekers who become homeless and need to be relocated elsewhere. The guidance aims to ensure that treating clinicians and midwives are notified if it is not possible to accommodate the person in the same area where she has previously been living.
	Pregnant women, including asylum seekers, are only detained for immigration reasons in very exceptional circumstances. If they are detained the healthcare teams present in Immigration Removal Centres are required to take all practical steps to obtain relevant health information from previous healthcare providers.
	All removals of persons from the United Kingdom which involve a pregnant woman must follow the International Air Transport Association (IATA) guidelines for the carriage of pregnant women.

Asylum Seekers

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures are in place to ensure that unsuccessful asylum applicants receive appropriate and effective prophylaxis against malaria and other diseases endemic in their countries of origin before deportation.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: When returning individuals to malaria risk countries, the Home Office provides free mosquito nets for children, pregnant women and vulnerable individuals who are unable to make their
	own provisions to access medication or mosquito nets. For those that may be particularly vulnerable to infection, consideration is given to providing other inoculations or prophylaxis.

Banking

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to safeguard United Kingdom interests in connection with proposals from the European Commission that direct supervision of London interest benchmark rates should be transferred to the European Securities and Markets Authority in Paris.

Lord Deighton: The Government recognises the importance of benchmark reform and has been leading the way on this issue through domestic steps relating to LIBOR and in international fora.
	A European Commission proposal on Benchmark Reform has not yet been published. If and when a proposal is published, the Government will work with others, over the course of negotiations, to ensure that the final legislation that is adopted is fit for purpose, improves markets, and protects UK interests.

Banks: Money Laundering

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any regulatory intervention has been made in response to disclosures about HSBC’s involvement in money laundering.

Lord Deighton: US investigations and enforcement action on HSBC focused on their subsidiaries in the US. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has no direct supervisory remit over these HSBC entities.
	However, in conjunction with the action taken by the US, the (then) FSA, as lead regulator for the HSBC Group globally, made a number of requirements of HSBC Holdings plc, designed to ensure that all parts of the HSBC Group are compliant with the relevant legal and regulatory requirements across the Group to prevent similar failings occurring in future.
	This included requiring a committee of the HSBC Board with a mandate to oversee matters relating to anti-money laundering, sanctions, terrorist financing and proliferation financing; requiring the Group to revise its policies and procedures to ensure that all parts of the HSBC Group are subject to standards equivalent to those required under UK requirements; HSBC employing an independent monitor to oversee the Group's compliance with UK anti-money laundering, sanctions, terrorist financing and proliferation financing requirements and to provide independent reporting to the HSBC Board committee and regulators. HSBC Holdings was also required to appoint a Group Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO), with responsibility for ensuring that systems and controls are in place across the Group.
	The FCA is closely monitoring the implementation of these requirements by HSBC.

Burma

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made representations to the government of Burma following reports of the reintroduction of a two-child policy for Rohingya Muslims; and whether they intend to ensure that British organisations do not provide support for the implementation of such policies in Burma.

Baroness Warsi: We continue to raise our serious concerns about reports of a reintroduction of a two-child policy for Rohingya communities with the Burmese government, citing the human rights obligations to which the country has signed up. The Minister of State for trade and investment, my noble Friend Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, made these points in Naypyidaw on 14 June. Our implementing partners in Burma should be under no illusion that their support for the implementation of such a policy would be completely unacceptable to the British Government.
	We welcome Aung San Suu Kyi's statement that any enforcement of a two-child policy would be discriminatory and not in line with the upholding of human rights in Burma. We note recent press reports quoting a Burmese presidential spokesman who said that the central government did not announce the Rohingya two-child policy and that they would investigate.

Burma

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to take steps to protect religious minorities, in particular Rohingya Muslims, from the reintroduction of a two-child policy pertaining specifically to those minorities in Burma; and what assessment they have made of such a policy.

Baroness Warsi: According to a Rakhine State government spokesperson, a district order enforcing a two-child limit for families in Northern Rakhine State was re-imposed in mid-May. De facto restrictions on the rights of Rohingya to marry and give birth have been in place since the 1990s or earlier. A specific regulation was first introduced in Northern Rakhine State in 2005, when an additional statement was appended to local marriage certificates prohibiting couples from having more than two children.
	The British Government is opposed to any measures which contravene the human rights of any community in Burma. We are raising our serious concerns about this policy with Burmese government ministers in Naypyidaw, citing the government's human rights obligations, and the apparent contradiction between the Rakhine State government's approach and the recommendations of the Rakhine Commission report, which was endorsed by President Thein Sein. During
	his visit to Burma on 14 June, the Minister of State for trade and investment, my noble Friend Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, raised our concerns with the government in Naypyidaw.

Burma

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on Rohingya women of the reported reintroduction in Burma of a two-child policy which would specifically apply to the Rohingya Muslim minority.

Baroness Warsi: The Government has made no formal assessment of the impact on Rohingya women of the reported two-child policy. However we understand that since at least 2005, children in Northern Rakhine State born to unmarried parents, or to families with more than two children, have been considered ‘illegal'. Where discovered, the authorities have placed those children on ‘blacklists', denying them the most basic rights. Credible research by non governmental organisations, including Medecins Sans Frontieres has shown that the restrictions on marriage and childbirth in Northern Rakhine State have led to serious health consequences. Pregnant women have resorted to unsafe and illegal abortions, sometimes self-induced, leading to high maternal mortality rates and psycho-social stress.
	Our Embassy in Rangoon will continue to raise our human rights concerns with Burmese government ministers, including with respect to the Rohingya minority and a two-child policy. The Minister of State for Trade and Investment, my noble Friend, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, made these points to the Burmese government in Naypyidaw on 14 June.

Dogs

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the average response time of police services to dog-related complaints in each local authority in the metropolitan county of Merseyside in each of the last five years.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The requested information is not collected by the Home Office.

Dogs: Dangerous Dogs

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when and how they intend to implement their commitment to extending dog-related offences to attacks that take place on private property.

Lord De Mauley: On 9 May the Government introduced into Parliament
	the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. The Bill had its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 10 June. Clause 98 of the Bill extends the criminal liability for a dog being dangerously out of control to all places, including private property. The Police will be responsible for enforcement of the provisions on dangerous dogs. The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent next year.

Drones

Baroness Stern: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assurances they have received that United States bases in the United Kingdom will not be used to operate United States drone strikes in non-declared war zones.

Lord Astor of Hever: The US does not operate Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems from United States Visiting Force bases in the UK. Therefore, no such assurances are required.

Embryology

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Marland on 5 December 2012 (WA 158–9) and Viscount Younger of Leckie on 4 June (WA 164), how the technical interdependencies of pronuclear transfer and somatic cell nuclear transfer were conveyed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in its consultation “Medical Frontiers: debating mitochondria replacement” so as to enable a lay audience to understand the relevant techniques.

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it has nothing further to add to the information given in my Written Answer of 3 June 2013 Official Report, col. WA 114.

Equitable Life

Lord Steel of Aikwood: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the decision to award 22.4 per cent of relative loss as compensation under the Equitable Life Payment Scheme was made; what are the affordability constraints limiting that amount, as noted in letters to those in receipt of compensation; and whether any other government undertakings are subject to such constraints.

Lord Deighton: In her 2008 report, which provides the foundation of the Equitable Life Payment Scheme, the
	Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that “It is appropriate to consider the potential impact on the public purse of any payment of compensation.”
	The 2010 Spending Review announced that up to £1.5 billion would be made available to the Equitable Life Payment Scheme. While the total Relative Losses suffered by this group are in the region of £4 billion, in the context of the constrained state of the public finances and the many competing spending priorities across Government, the Government decided that £1.5 billion was a substantial sum.
	The Government also decided that it would cover the losses of With-Profits Annuitants in full as they were the oldest, most vulnerable group. To determine how to distribute the remaining funds, the Government established the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments.
	The Commission invited views on this matter from interested parties and considered a number of options. Its final recommendation was that the simplest approach was for a 22.4 per cent pro-rata to be applied to payments to non With-Profits Annuitants, with a £10 de minimis for payments. The Government accepted the recommendations and a copy of the Commission's report can be found on the Commission's website1.
	1 http://equitablelifepaymentscheme.independent.gov.uk/resources /final_icelp.htm

EU: Credit and Debit Cards

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the costs and benefits for (1) consumers, and (2) small businesses, of holding and using credit and debit cards as a result of the European Commission's green paper Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments and of its proposals to regulate interchange rates.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have assessed the impact of the European Commission's green paper Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments on the development of new products that could be beneficial for consumers, such as contactless payments and mobile payments technology.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what analysis they have made of the impact on consumers and small businesses in the United States and Spain of the introduction of interchange regulation on card payments; and what assessment they have made of the potential impact in the United Kingdom of proposals for similar regulation from the European Commission.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what evidence they will use in gauging the impact on consumers and small businesses of European Commission proposals to regulate interchange on card payments.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of interchange regulation on the United Kingdom's e-commerce industry.

Lord Deighton: The European Commission is expected to publish its response to the Green Paper consultation Towards an Integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments later this summer, together with a legislative proposal to regulate multilateral interchange fees on card payments. The proposal will be accompanied by an impact assessment.
	The Government will make its own assessment of the legislative proposal once the proposal is published.

EU: Loans

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether all European Union citizens will be eligible to receive loans under their proposals to guarantee mortgages; and, if so, whether the properties concerned will have to be in the United Kingdom.

Lord Deighton: Budget 2013 announced the Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee. This is a new scheme that will be available from January 2014. HM Treasury is currently working with stakeholders to determine the detailed design of the scheme.
	The scheme outline document, published alongside Budget 2013, stated that the properties purchased under the scheme must be in the United Kingdom.

Exporters: Foreign Language Skills

Baroness Coussins: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the British Chambers of Commerce report Exporting is good for Britain but knowledge gaps and language skills hold back exporters, published on 10 June, they will assess the importance of language learning to Britain’s future competitive position.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: Businesses are in the best position to understand what skills are needed in their organisation, including language skills for exporting. The Government’s reforms are creating a dynamic and flexible skills system that responds to the changing needs of businesses and individuals through a demand led model. Local Enterprise Partnerships of businesses and civic leaders articulate skills strategies and priorities to drive growth in their area, and, in addition, the Employer Ownership Pilot is giving employers direct control of skills funding and skill solutions. In Higher Education language provision, the Higher Education Funding Council for England announced last month that an additional £3.1 million would support a new programme of activity to encourage more young people of all backgrounds to study languages at university.
	UK Trade and Investment provides a subsidised service, available to Small and Medium Enterprises, which helps them to overcome language and cultural barriers in overseas markets. The service encourages companies to translate and localise both their marketing materials and their websites to meet the requirements of their overseas clients. Companies are signposted to organisations that can provide them with assistance selecting providers for translation and language skills.

Food: Beef

Baroness Byford: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether local authorities continue to collect samples of beef products on sale at retail and catering outlets on behalf of the Food Standards Agency; and, if so, whether the Food Standards Agency is recompensing them for the cost involved.

Earl Howe: The Food Standards Agency is funding local authority sampling for meat speciation by DNA testing as part of the 2013-14 National Coordinated Feed and Food Sampling grants. This will include testing of beef products.

Food: Security and Nutrition

Lord Cameron of Dillington: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, as part of the IDA17 negotiations, they will encourage the World Bank to raise the issue of nutrition in discussions with governments, for example in the Country Partnership Strategies, so that enhanced food security and nutrition are integrated alongside traditional economic indicators such as growth of gross domestic product.

Baroness Northover: DFID has been working closely with the World Bank and, at the recent Nutrition for Growth event the Bank committed itself almost to triple its expenditure on nutrition to $600m in 2013-14. The Bank Group will also step up technical and analytical support to countries with the greatest prevalence of stunting or underweight children, and add stunting as a new indicator on the Bank Group’s Corporate Scorecard.

G8

Lord Eames: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the cost of security arrangements for the G8 meeting in County Fermanagh; and from what source that expenditure will be met.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The UK Government is committed to publishing the full costs of the policing and security operation after the Summit once the detail is available.
	The costs of the policing and security operation will be shared across a number of government departments.

Gaza

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with their European partners concerning the case for the United Nations to be able to co-ordinate its humanitarian response with the authorities in Gaza.

Baroness Northover: The UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator and his team maintain the level of interaction with the de facto authorities in Gaza required in order to provide their assistance. DFID officials regularly discuss UN activity in Gaza with EU partners.

Health: Complementary and Alternative Medicines

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will ensure the safety of herbal medicines currently entering the United Kingdom; and how they intend to regulate existing practice in that area.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to legislate with respect to the practice of unlicensed herbalists.

Earl Howe: With the introduction of Directive 2004/24 /EC and its related traditional herbal medicines registration scheme, all manufactured herbal medicinal products require an appropriate product licence before they can be placed on the market. The requirements of the scheme encompass safety, quality and the provision of patient information.
	The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for enforcing medicines legislation in the United Kingdom. The MHRA will investigate any report of a company making medicinal products without the appropriate authorisation. In addition the MHRA also routinely monitors medicines being offered for sale on the internet. Where appropriate, enforcement action is taken against suppliers who operate outside the legal requirements.
	The proposed policy to statutorily regulate herbal practitioners is complex and a number of issues have arisen which the Department is required to work through. An announcement will be made once these matters have been resolved.

Health: Complementary and Alternative Medicines

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultations they have had with universities that have established courses for herbalists about their proposals to establish a statutory register for herbalists.

Earl Howe: To date, the department has not specifically consulted with universities or providers of established courses for herbalists about setting up a statutory register for herbal medicine practitioners.

Health: Dental Health

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ask the authorities now responsible for public health to include in their strategy preventative action on dental health, including the re-introduction of dental examinations in schools.

Earl Howe: We are committed to improving the oral health of school children. Learning has been gained from a number of recent locally based innovative approaches to oral health improvement. Dental public health leads in Public Health England are currently convening a steering group to commence work on a guidance document for local authorities on community based oral health improvement programmes, including those linked to schools. There are no plans to reintroduce school screening checks. In 2006, the National Screening Committee (NSC) advised that the routine dental screening of children in primary schools was ineffective in improving children's oral health. This policy is currently being reviewed as part of the UK NSC's regular review cycle of all policies.

Health: Ophthalmology

Lord Harrison: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of decisions by healthcare commissioners that result in a restriction in the provision of cataract surgery.

Earl Howe: Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are now responsible for commissioning elective surgical interventions such as cataract surgery, with NHS England providing oversight and support. NHS England has general intervention powers in relation to CCGs, should it be satisfied that a CCG is failing or has failed to discharge any of its functions, or there is a significant risk that it will fail to do so.
	NHS England have been clear that restricting access to services on the basis of cost alone is wrong and compromises patient care, and that decisions on treatments should be made by clinicians, based on what is most clinically appropriate for the patient.
	Sir Bruce Keogh (NHS Medical Director) is working with the Medical Royal Colleges and others, so that the National Health Service is clear about the evidence base for common types of surgical interventions. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists has been asked to develop guidelines for clinical commissioning of cataract surgery. The National Institute for Health and Care
	Excellence is also developing a Quality Standard on cataracts, which will be added to the library of NHS Quality Standards. This library will play an important role in helping clinical commissioning improve outcomes and quality of care for patients.

Health: Ophthalmology

Lord Harrison: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have analysed the cost of minor injuries caused by the poor vision of people on waiting lists for cataract surgery.

Earl Howe: This information is not available centrally.

Health: Prescriptions

The Countess of Mar: To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the patients of dispensing doctor practices in England are unable to nominate their doctor using the Electronic Prescription Service.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they took to ensure that the Electronic Prescription Service was procured with appropriate functionality for dispensing practices; and what assessment they have made of the level of functionality provided.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the change notice to enable patients to nominate their dispensing doctor under the Electronic Prescription Service will be implemented.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government when Release 2 of the Electronic Prescription Service will be fully available to the patients of dispensing practices.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the estimated cost of the full implementation of Release 2 of the Electronic Prescription Service for dispensing practices; whether that cost forms part of the £260 million fund for e-prescribing and electronic patient records; and, if not, how the cost will be met.

Earl Howe: The Electronic Prescription Service (EPS) is made up of several elements, a central component, a Release 2 compliant prescribing module within a practice system, a Release 2 compliant dispensing module within a dispensers' system and secure connectivity between the elements.
	General practitioner (GP) practices and dispensers (pharmacies and appliance contractors), if a patient requests, populate the patient's central record to indicate the patient's nominated dispenser, to where an electronic prescription is sent to be dispensed. Up to three dispensing contractors can be nominated: a community pharmacy, a dispensing appliance contractor or, in the case of eligible dispensing patients, their dispensing GP practice can be indicated. However, only the GP practice should indicate, if the patient requests, that the dispensing doctor is one of the patient's nominated dispensers.
	All practice systems now have a Release 2 compliant prescribing module and all but one pharmacy system have a Release 2 compliant dispensing module.
	However, currently, only one practice system (Microtest) has provided the functionality to enable the practice to indicate if the patient requests, that the dispensing doctor is one of the patient's nominated dispensers. We understand that NHS England is exploring making this functionality a mandatory requirement for strategic systems under the new GP Systems of Choice (GPSoC) procurement that is currently underway. Subject to this, all EPS Release 2 compliant prescribing systems would be expected to provide this functionality in due course. Further, no EPS Release 2 compliant prescribing system has included a Release 2 compliant dispensing module within its system. If dispensing doctors require this within their system, they will need to negotiate this directly' with their system supplier themselves. Therefore, subject to EPS Release 2 compliant systems enabling nomination of a dispensing system as above, a dispensing doctor could operate EPS on behalf of their dispensing patients by operating a system with a release 2 compliant prescribing module and a pharmacy system with a release 2 compliant dispensing module.
	All GP practices are eligible to receive a centrally funded practice system with a Release 2 compliant prescribing module as part of the GPSoC programme. However, information technology (IT) to support a dispensing doctor's dispensing activity is not covered by GPSoC and practices are responsible for any dispensing system or dispensing component within their practice system that they need to provide this dispensing service. Any funding for this would need to be considered as part of the negotiations for the provision of pharmaceutical services by dispensing doctors.
	The £260 million fund is to support the deployment of e-prescribing in secondary care. It is not expected to support the deployment of EPS in primary care.
	EPS Release 2 is currently deployed to ten percent of GP practices in England. Current projections see EPS Release 2 rolled out to the vast majority of English GP practices by 2017.

House of Lords: Security

Lord Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chairman of Committees (1) on what date, (2) at what costs, and (3) for what purpose, the Visitor QR Code Scanner and all associated equipment was installed at Peers' Entrance to the House of Lords.

Lord Sewel: The scanner and all associated equipment was installed at Peers’ Entrance on 14 May 2013, as part of a trial to improve the reception arrangements for guests at Peers’ Entrance and to enhance access security in respect of visitors. The total cost of the project to date is approximately £20,000 (including VAT). As well as the costs relating to the scanner and associated equipment, this figure also includes additional costs, such as those incurred for software and training.

Houses of Parliament: Demonstrations

Lord Goodlad: To ask the Chairman of Committees what controls exist over the holding of demonstrations in Old Palace Yard, and over the noise generated by such demonstrations; and what steps are taken to minimise disruption to those working in the Palace of Westminster.

Lord Sewel: The Western side of Old Palace Yard is not part of the Parliamentary Estate so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the enforcement of the law governing demonstrations there, which includes provisions of both primary legislation and local authority byelaws.
	The management of demonstrations is a matter for the Metropolitan Police, and operational decisions regarding the noise level are a matter for them. Black Rod works in close contact with the Metropolitan Police on a continual basis to ensure that access to the House is maintained and disruption to its work is minimised.

Housing: Mortgages

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their proposals for guaranteeing mortgages will include a forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility of (1) the impact of the scheme on house prices, and (2) the consequences for house prices and borrowers of eventually terminating the scheme; and what methodology will be used to determine a fair premium for the risk.

Lord Deighton: Budget 2013 announced the Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee. This is a new scheme that will be available from January 2014 and HM Treasury is currently working with stakeholders to determine the detailed design of the scheme.
	The scheme outline document, published alongside Budget 2013, stated that the fee will be set so that the scheme is self-financing. Lenders will, therefore, need to compensate the Government for expected losses under the scheme, the cost of capital of providing the guarantee and the administrative costs of the scheme.
	It is for the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to produce the official economic and fiscal forecasts. These are based on all government policies and take into account the impact of new policies on the economic forecast. The OBR's 'Economic and Fiscal Outlook1 sets out the key assumptions, conventions and projections underpinning the forecast, including the forecast for house prices. The OBR is expected to scrutinize a costing of the scheme and also set out its updated forecast in due course.
	1
	http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uldeconomic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2013/

Housing: Smoke Alarms

Lord Harrison: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce legislation to require residential property landlords to provide and maintain smoke alarms in their properties.

Baroness Hanham: I refer the noble Lord my recent answer of 10 June 2013, Official Report, Col. WA215.

Human Trafficking

Baroness Doocey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 22 April (WA 387) which stated that 27.5 per cent of Nigerian children referred to the National Referral Mechanism have received a positive conclusive grounds decision, what is the main reason for a refusal of a conclusive grounds decision; and whether the percentage of Nigerian children receiving a positive conclusive grounds decision is consistent with that of other nationality groups referred to the National Referral Mechanism.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: As of 23 May 2013 data from the National Referral Mechanism records 171 potential child victims of trafficking with a declared country of origin of Nigeria referred since April 2009. Of these, 28.7 per cent have received a positive conclusive ground decision. 11.7 per cent have received a negative conclusive grounds decision and 23.4 per cent are awaiting a conclusive grounds decision. One case was withdrawn and in five cases there has been a suspension of consideration.
	989 potential child victims of trafficking (excluding those with a declared country of origin of Nigeria) have been referred to the National Referral Mechanism since April 2009. Of these, 35.5 per cent have received a positive conclusive ground decision, 12.4 per cent have received a negative conclusive grounds decision and 15.6 per cent are awaiting a conclusive grounds decision.
	Refusal of a conclusive grounds decision, in any case of potential trafficking, is because the facts of the case do not, on the balance of probabilities, meet the criteria set out in competent authority guidance. Competent authority guidance for UK Visas and Immigration staff is available online at: http://www.ukba. homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumprocessguidance/specialcases/guidance/competent-guidance?view=Binary.
	A copy will be placed in the House Library.

Human Trafficking

Baroness Doocey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether local authorities are asked to pay for specialist care and safe accommodation for 16- and 17-year old child victims of trafficking out of the £71 per child per day grant currently given by the UK Border Agency to reimburse care arrangements for asylum-seeking children.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether local authorities are asked to pay for specialist care and safe accommodation for 18-year old victims of trafficking in the leaving care system out of the £150 per child per week grant for formerly relevant children currently given by the UK Border Agency to reimburse care arrangements for asylum-seeking young people.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The Home Office provides funding to local authorities to assist with their costs in supporting unaccompanied children who have claimed asylum, including the proportion who have been trafficked. The funding is used to cover the costs of providing foster parents or other accommodation arrangements, as well as the costs of the social workers who provide appropriate care.
	Currently, £95 per day is provided for each supported child aged under 16 and £71 per day for each child aged 16 or 17. Extra funding is also provided to those local authorities that support high numbers of cases, generally because of their proximity to our major ports or asylum screening offices.
	Local authorities usually have a duty to continue to provide support (“leaving care support”) to the persons after they reach 18 years of age provided they are legally entitled to remain in the United Kingdom, for example because they have been granted refugee status. £150 per week is provided to the local authority for each person supported in this way. This funding is additional to the mainstream benefits and housing assistance available to the majority of cases.
	Local authorities only have a duty to provide leaving care support to persons aged over 18 who have been refused asylum and remain unlawfully present in the United Kingdom if the provision of support is necessary for human rights reasons. For this reason, Home Office funding ceases three months after the person's asylum claim and any appeals are finally determined as refused.

Human Trafficking

Lord McColl of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in relation to European Union Directive 2011/36 on combating human trafficking, why the notification made to the European Commission on 25 April 2013 was of only partial transposition of the Directive; and when they expect to be able to notify the Commission of full transposition.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The Government notified the Commission of full compliance in April, subject to the Criminal Justice Act Northern Ireland receiving Royal Assent. This was received on 25 April 2013 with
	the human trafficking provisions commencing on 26 April. I expect the Commission to reflect our full position shortly.

Human Trafficking

Lord McColl of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what documents have been submitted to the European Commission in support of the notification of transposition of European Union Directive 2011/36 on combating human trafficking; and whether they will place copies of those documents in the Library of the House.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: A transposition table, including details of those documents that transpose the Directive, was submitted to the Commission by the deadline. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

Immigration

Lord Ouseley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many families were separated for the purposes of immigration control in 2012; what were the outcomes for the children separated; how many families were reunited; and how many children are currently in statutory care as a result of being separated from their parents.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: For immigration controls at the border, Border Force will endeavour, where possible, to keep family groups together. However, family groups are occasionally separated in specific circumstances, as outlined below:
	Where a family group includes adults who are judged to have a high risk of absconding staff will aim to detain the whole family group until their return flight. Where this is not possible one of the adults, usually the head of the family could be detained as an incentive for the rest of the family to comply with temporary admission.Unaccompanied children who arrive in the UK where there is no suitable family member to care for them are referred to Children's Services. This could include children where the person coming to collect them has not produced sufficient evidence that they are a family member as claimed or where there are doubts about the suitability of the family member to care for the child. These cases are referred to Children's Services so that they can make a professional assessment of the risks involved in allowing the child to be cared for by the adult.In addition a child may arrive accompanied by an adult who claims to be a family member but if there are doubts about the claimed relationship or suspicions that the child may be a victim of trafficking then the child will be separated from the adult pending further investigations by Children's Services and if appropriate the police.
	We hold some local data on cases where families were separated at the border for the purposes of immigration control in 2012. However, the way in which cases are recorded varies between ports. To obtain an accurate record of how many families were separated at the border could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
	For immigration control inland, information is not recorded in a reportable field on the Home Office's Case Information Database (CID). Obtaining such information would therefore require a manual search of records and could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

Immigration: Unaccompanied Children

Baroness Doocey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 21 May (WA 59), how many non-British children were intercepted at Greater London and south-east regional ports in 2012.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: 1,386 non-British children were intercepted at Greater London and south-east regional ports in 2012.
	We have taken Greater London and south-east regional ports to mean the following ports: Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted, Luton, London City, Southend and St Pancras International.
	Caveat: The figure quoted above is management information, which is subject to internal quality checks and may be subject to change.

Israel

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with their European partners about the case for Israel incurring penalties for its policies of forced displacement and settlement building.

Baroness Warsi: The issue of Israeli settlement construction and demolition of Palestinian homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is a subject of active discussion with our EU partners. The EU remains deeply concerned by continued settlement construction, which threatens the viability of the two-state solution.
	The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right honourable Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), has been talking to others, including the French and German Foreign Ministers, about how EU member states can actively support US Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to revive the peace process over the coming months, with European states contributing to incentives and
	disincentives for both sides to make progress towards a return to negotiations. But we continue to believe that imposing penalties would do nothing to promote the peace process, and that negotiations are the only route out of this impasse.

Luxembourg Compromise

Lord Jopling: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the procedure to be followed when a Minister seeks to invoke the Luxembourg Compromise mechanism in European Union negotiations.

Baroness Warsi: The Luxembourg Compromise is a convention which has not been formalised and the procedure for invoking it is not defined. However, it remains in place following the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty.

Luxembourg Compromise

Lord Jopling: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Deighton on 3 June (WA 139), whether the “relevant negotiating and legal framework” includes the use of the Luxembourg Compromise mechanism.

Lord Deighton: The Luxembourg Compromise is a convention that has not been formalised and the procedure for invoking it is not defined. However, it remains in place following the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty.
	The Government reserves the right to use all available negotiating tools to block any proposal that may adversely affect its national interest, including in relation to financial services.

Order of St Patrick

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Order of St Patrick is presently closed for new members; and, if so, whether they will review the arrangements governing its re-opening for individuals associated with, and who have given service to, Northern Ireland; and whether women can be invested with the Order.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The Order has effectively been in abeyance since the establishment of the Republic of Ireland in 1922. There are no plans to review existing arrangements.

Pakistan

Lord Avebury: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assistance they have offered to the government of Pakistan to maintain their polio eradication campaign following the attacks on volunteers in Kaga Wala village on 28 May.

Baroness Northover: We strongly condemn the recent attacks on volunteers in Kaga Walla, and any attack or threat against aid workers who are trying to help others. We are committed to maintaining the progress of recent years and ultimately see the eradication of polio from Pakistan.
	The UK is a long-standing contributor to the global polio eradication effort and remains deeply committed to this goal. At the Global Vaccine Summit in Abu Dhabi in April the UK made a new commitment of up to £300 million over six years for polio eradication, in support of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative's Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan. This will include support to Pakistan - one of just three countries where polio is still endemic. We also provide support via GAVI to help the Government of Pakistan develop comprehensive immunisation plans.

Pensions

Baroness Thomas of Winchester: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of pension provision for wives resulting from husbands buying single annuity pensions; and whether they intend to hold talks with the insurance industry to find ways to encourage more husbands to take out joint annuities.

Lord Freud: DWP has not made a specific assessment of the adequacy of pension provision for wives resulting from the annuity decisions of their husbands.
	DWP and wider research illustrates that the great majority of married people purchasing annuities have a good awareness of joint life annuities. However, they will not always purchase or prefer such annuities. Research evidence suggests a range of factors influence their final decisions. Indeed, it will not always be appropriate for a married couple to have a joint life annuity.
	DWP has been working with the industry through the Open Market Option Review Group to find ways of encouraging people to consider what type of annuity is most appropriate for their needs. The Group has delivered a number of measures to offer increased support to people in considering their options.

Planning: Land Value

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made an assessment of the potential rise in land values attributable to large infrastructure projects in progress or planned; and whether they will promote the use of some of the developer or landowner gains to help finance the projects.

Lord Deighton: The Government promotes the use of developer gains to finance infrastructure projects where it is viable and fair to do so. These options to capture increases in land value associated with major infrastructure are considered on a project by project basis.
	For example, in 2012 two developer funded revenue streams were established by the Greater London Authority to secure a £1 billion loan from the Treasury for the Northern Line extension to Battersea:
	1) The growth in business rates revenue in the development sites around the new station within a new ‘Nine Elms Enterprise Zone'.
	2) Contributions from local developers collected by the local authority under the section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes in the planning system.
	In a separate example, the Mayor of London has introduced a new charge on development in London to raise £300 million to fund Crossrail. The Community Infrastructure Levy charge is set according to the Borough's average house price and the extent to which it will benefit from Crossrail; thereby capturing a portion of the land value uplift from the developer.
	Infrastructure UK and Government bodies will continue to innovate financially to help both the private and public sector deliver Britain's next generation of infrastructure.

Planning: Onshore Wind

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement by Baroness Hanham on 6 June, whether their proposed changes to local planning procedures will allow communities near proposed wind farms to object on the grounds of anticipated excessive noise.

Baroness Hanham: The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that an application for renewable energy development should only be approved if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. Where relevant such impacts include noise.
	The Government announced that compulsory pre-application consultation with local communities will be introduced in England for more significant onshore wind development. Once this requirement is in place, during this pre-application consultation communities
	may choose to raise concerns about planning issues such as noise. Communities are already able to raise concerns once a formal planning application has been made, through the statutory consultation process.

Post-2015 Development Framework

Baroness Coussins: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what place they expect corporate sustainability reporting to have in the post-2015 development framework.

Baroness Northover: The government welcomes the attention paid to corporate sustainability reporting in the recently published report of the High Level Panel on Post-2015, co-chaired by the Prime Minister. We are working with others to explore ways to continue this helpful focus into the final post-2015 framework, to be agreed in the United Nations.

Schools: Free Meals

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they are encouraging more parents and guardians whose children are entitled to free school meals to apply for that benefit; and what action they are taking to reduce the social stigma associated with applying for such benefits for (1) parents or guardians, and (2) their children.

Lord Nash: The Government is committed to increasing the take-up of free school meals by pupils who are entitled to them. We want disadvantaged pupils to benefit from nutritious meals, and for their schools to receive extra funding through the Pupil Premium in order to help them to raise the attainment of these pupils.
	In order to encourage all schools to take action to remove the stigma which is sometimes attached to free school meals and to encourage all those who are eligible to apply, the Department provides guidance on good practice and steps that schools and local authorities can take to encourage take-up of free school meals, for example by informing parents that registering for free school meals is confidential.
	The Department’s online Eligibility Checking Service enables parents to apply for school meals without having to give the school information about their income from benefits or earnings. We are encouraging local authorities to increase their use of this resource so that more parents have the opportunity to apply online.
	A number of schools and local authorities have implemented cashless payment systems, which help ensure that those children who are receiving free school meals cannot be identified.

Schools: Funding

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to decrease funding for schools in the next spending review; and, if so, what safeguards they will put in place to ensure the quality of school dinners does not decrease.

Lord Nash: The Government has announced the amount of funding for schools up to and including the financial year 2014-15. Decisions about school funding for 2015-16 will be taken as part of the current Spending Round which concludes on 26 June 2013.
	Independent reviewers, Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent, have been preparing an action plan for school food. The School Food Plan will be published later this summer, and will set out what needs to be done to increase the number of children eating good food and promote a positive food culture in schools.

Syria

The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and to the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, regarding the release of Metropolitan Yazigi and Metropolitan Ibrahim, who were kidnapped in Syria on 22 April 2013.

Baroness Warsi: We are very concerned about this kidnapping, which highlights the seriousness of the situation in Syria. The Syrian National Coalition have confirmed that they do not know who is holding the two bishops or where they are being held. They have had no contact with the abductors or the bishops.
	Along with prominent religious leaders, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my honourable Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Mr Burt), has publicly condemned the kidnapping and urged whoever is holding the Bishops to release them immediately. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials are in direct contact with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch's office about this case.

Violent Extremism

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will encourage an international conference of Muslim religious leaders to address the issue of violent extremism within Islam.

Baroness Warsi: This country is resolute in its stand against violent extremism. As the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), has made clear, there is no religious justification for these acts, and he has stressed that al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism has taken more Muslim lives than any others. We are working with international partners and religious leaders worldwide to combat violent extremism.

Visas

Lord Warner: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 3 June (WA 154), whether they have any plans to amend the existing Immigration Rules to identify those Israeli citizens who are domiciled in an illegally occupied territory with a view to requiring them to secure a visa for any visit to the United Kingdom.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: There are no plans to amend the Immigration Rules that would see Israeli citizens, regardless of where they are domiciled, requiring a visa to visit the UK.

Waterways: Sewage

Lord Campbell-Savours: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many combined sewage overflow pipes are located between the Thames Barrier and the source of the Thames; what are the locations of each of those pipes which relate to overflow at sewage pumping stations; and what are the locations of each of those pipes which relate to gravity-fed combined sewer overflows.

Lord De Mauley: There are 446 permitted discharge points into the River Thames, of which 34 could be classed as combined sewer overflows (“Sewage Discharges —Sewer Storm Overflow—Water Company” in Table 1). A further 57 sewage treatment works are permitted to make discharges under storm conditions.
	The permitted discharges to and within 250 metres of the main River Thames (between source and the Thames Barrier), are listed in Table 1.
	
		
			 Table 1 Permitted discharges to the River Thames, or within 250 metres of the River Thames 
			 Type of discharge Number of permits 
			 Miscellaneous Discharges - Mine/Groundwater As Raised 2 
			 Miscellaneous Discharges - Surface Water 15 
		
	
	
		
			 Miscellaneous Discharges - Swimming Pool Water 1 
			 Miscellaneous Discharges - Unspecified 1 
			 Sewage & Trade Combined - Unspecified 9 
			 Sewage Discharges - Final/Treated Effluent - Not Water Company 233 
			 Sewage Discharges - Final/Treated Effluent - Water Company 6 
			 Sewage Discharges - Pumping Station - Water Company 57 
			 Sewage Discharges - Sewer Storm Overflow - Water Company 34 
			 Sewage Discharges - STW Storm Overflow/Storm Tank - Water 43 
			 Company  
			 Trade Discharges - Cooling Water 12 
			 Trade Discharges - Process Effluent - Not Water Company 21 
			 Trade Discharges - Process Effluent - Water Company 5 
			 Trade Discharges - Site Drainage 6 
			 Trade Discharges - Unspecified 1 
			 Grand Total 446 
		
	
	The locations of permitted discharges that relate to overflows from sewage pumping stations are listed in Table 2, below. The locations of those pipes which relate to permitted gravity-fed combined sewer overflows are listed in Table 3.
	
		
			 Table 2: Locations of permitted discharges that relate to overflows from sewage pumping stations 
			 Site name National Grid Reference Receiving watercourse Operator 
			 Kew PS, West Hall Road, Kew TQ1980077000 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Emergency discharge, Egham Water Wo TQ0237071740 Thames Veolia Water Central Ltd 
			 Kemble Pumping Station, Kemble, Glo ST9961097390 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Baldwins Shore SU9670077800 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Blue Cottage SU7760078800 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Brading Way SU6670076200 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Brentford Dock TQ1780077200 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Bridge End, Dorchester SU5700094000 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Burcot SU5570096000 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Camps Pool SU7850079100 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Cattle Market SU6090089200 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Chertsey Lane (N) TQ0350070700 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Cleeve - Goring SU6010081400 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Court Gardens SU8490086200 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Cricklade (Hatchetts) SU1040093900 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Dorney Reach SU9170079200 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
		
	
	
		
			 Eastfield Lane SU6390077100 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Fairmile Hospital SU5990085300 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 French Horn SU7520075800 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Friday Street, Henley SU7630082700 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Grandpont SP5100005300 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Ham Haugh Island, Shepperton TQ0720065700 The Bourne Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Hambleden - Mill End SU7850085000 Hamble Brook Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 High Street, Staines TQ0350071500 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Jew's Row Pumping Station TQ2600075500 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Kingston Main TQ1780069601 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Laleham Park TQ0510067800 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Lammas Drive (Foul), Wraysbury TQ0260072000 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Littlemore Low Level SP5250002900 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Lock Island, Shepperton TQ0740065901 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Lower Cookham Rd Car Park SU9030082500 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Lower Hampton Road TQ1200069100 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Lower Wharf SU6080089100 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Mill SP5310001400 Sandford Lock Cut Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 O'Hagans Hampton Court Road TQ1500068900 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Old Windsor B SU9900073700 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Osney Mead SP5020005600 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Park Road, Henley SU7640082100 Cold Bath Brook Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Petersham (Buccleugh) - Kew S.T. TQ1810073800 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Pharoah's Island TQ0690065900 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Raymill Rd. East SU9000081600 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Red Lion Square Hampton TQ1390069400 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 River Gardens SU9060079600 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Saxon's Cross SU5450093700 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Scouts Camp SU8590085900 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Shooters Hill SU6290076800 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 St. Albans Hampton Court Road TQ1430069300 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Staines Road TQ0490069400 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
		
	
	
		
			 Suttons Seeds SU7370073900 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 The Island (Foul), Wraysbury TQ0120072500 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Watermans Way SU7800078500 Bowsey Hill Brook Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Wharf Road SU5940092600 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Wheatsheaf Lane TQ0380070200 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 White Hart, Sonning (SU758759) SU7580075900 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Willow Caravan Site SU9350077200 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Winterbrook SU6070088700 Bradfords Brook Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Yardmead TQ0120072200 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 3: locations of those pipes which relate to permitted gravity-fed combined sewer overflows 
			 Site name National Grid Reference Receiving watercourse Operator 
			 HEATH WALL PS, LONDON TQ2953077620 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 EARL PS STORM OUTLET, LONDON TQ3672078970 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 GREENWICH PS, GREENWICH, LONDON TQ3889078150 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 WESTERN PS LOW LEVEL SEWER, LONDON TQ2868077940 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 SHAD, THAMES PS, LONDON TQ3381080060 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 HAMMERSMITH PS, LONDON TQ2304078160 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 COUNTERS CREEK, LOTS ROAD PS, LONDON TQ2657177100 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 LONDON, ISLE OF DOGS PUMPING STATION TQ3838079720 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Angel Road Sewer Storm Overflow, He SU7630082502 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Ashton Keynes SU0640093401 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Barnes Storm TQ2139076420 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Cassington (New) SP4660010100 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Cookham SU8930085901 Wey Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Cole Stairs, Pennigton St, Wapping TQ3557080660 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
		
	
	
		
			 Down Hall Road, Kingston TQ1780069602 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Temple Place, Essex Street TQ3113080790 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Kew TQ1980076800 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Lombard Road TQ2670076400 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 London Bridge TQ3286080620 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Low Level 1 N, Grosvenor Ditch, Mil TQ3026078790 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Medmenham SU8180084401 Danesfield Brook Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 N E Sr Shadwell, King Edward Mem Pa TQ3563080700 Tidal Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Nightingale Lane, Downstream Tower TQ3416080190 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Portsmouth Road, Uxbridge Road TQ1770068000 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Portsmouth Road, Surbiton Road TQ1770068500 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Portsmouth Road, Riverside Close TQ1770068300 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Ratcliffe Highway, Limekiln (Narrow Mem Pa TQ3599080830 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Streatley SU5970081001 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Smith Street, Chelsea Embankment TQ2811077790 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Pauls Pier Wharf, Thames Street TQ3200080820 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 West Putney S R, Home Way TQ2349076241 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Whitchurch (Oxon) SU6300076900 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Windsor SU9970075001 Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd 
			 Waterman Street TQ2400075700 Tidal River Thames Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Waterways: Sewage

Lord Campbell-Savours: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the site name of the discharge point to the Thames of the outflow from the Little Marlow sewage works.

Lord De Mauley: The Little Marlow sewage treatment works discharges into the River Thames via outfalls on the north bank and is known locally as Spade Oak Reach (approximate National Grid Reference: SU 8779 8700). The Environment Agency refers to the site as Little Marlow sewage treatment works outfall.